2017 (10) TMI 1053

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per Bench The common issue involved in the above appeals is whether the appellant will fall under clause (i) or clause (ii) of the exemption Notification No.34/2004-ST dated 3.12.2004. In other words, whether the goods transported by the GTA, exclusively for the appellant, would fall within the meaning of "individual consignment" or "consignments". The said Notifi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er section 78 for the period January 2005 to February 2006 and Rs. 16,911/- and imposed penalty under section 76 for the period March 2006 to January 2007. The appeals filed by the appellants were dismissed by Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the appellants have filed these appeals before the Tribunal. 2. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel Ms. D.Naveena appearing for appellant was fair enou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as suppressed or wilfully mis-stated any facts. 3. The learned AR Shri R. Subramaniyam reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. 5. As already discussed above, the issue stands settled in favour of the Revenue by the judgment reported in the case of Subramania Siva Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra). Following the same, we hold that the demand is sustainable. However .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X